I wouldn't mind paying a few dollars for sites I use a lot, but filling out a form with all that information is too much work. Plus it pisses me off that I have to specify Visa/MC/whatever when this information is already present in the credit card number. AHhhhhhhhhhhh!!!
I am with you on a lot of this. I always say I will allow ads while on a certain site when that site takes responsibility for the content. At least with print ads the magazine publisher has some control over who/what gets advertised on their pages. With a website there is no such control, instead some third party can send whatever content they like. Given the incidents of ad servers serving up exploits, I am not at all motivated to allow the ads.
Why do you say "there almost has to be a markup" when the experience you relate proves that this is not the case? If you can get it 'gray market' for a quarter of what local sellers would charge, this proves there that the markup isn't necessary.
Yes, those are the (I think valid) responses to that point. If the TSA was really about serious "terrorism" deterrent it would have a better reaction to this sort of contraband incident. And government doesn't do effective, let alone cost effective.
Some folks have observed that it isn't necessary for the TSA to find a gun all of the time or even most of the time. All they have to do is make it too risky to try it. Since there is an extremely limited supply of fanatical hijackers, they can't afford to send them through checkpoints where they *might* be detected. Instead they will be saved for less risky attempts.
Not according to the poll results at least. instead flier's opinions were roughly the same as non-fliers http://www.gallup.com/poll/156491/Americans-Views-TSA-Positive-Negative.aspx "57% of the smaller group who have flown at least three times [in the past year] have an excellent or good opinion of the TSA's job performance"
The point was that the energy to raise global temps doesn't come from human activities, it comes from the sun. The difference is now in the process by which the sun's energy is radiated back into space.
the anyone-can-copy market doesn't actually lead to innovation. (If it did lead to innovation, Linux would surely be the desktop of choice today, right?)
There's plenty of evidence to support thinking otherwise. See for example Against Intellectual Monopoly by Boldrin and Levine
I submit that this sort of story is overblown.Yes, this is one out of hundreds of characteristics on a list. Just having one or even fifty from the list doesn't mean any individual has crossed the threshold of "suspicious". Everyone on/. should be familiar with this sort of thing from spam filters.
I sure do measure success, at least partly, in new services. And so did my grandparents. When telephone was a new service, they measured success by having access to it. Same with indoor plumbing and everything else. Correct me if I am wrong, it seems to me your belief is that somehow these things wouldn't be available without a government-enforced monopoly, which I don't think is a reasonable conclusion. For instance, (once the Bell patents expired) in 1907 some 20,000 independent operators were running half the new phone installations. The rate of phone installations soared once the patents expired, until the next Bell chairman began successfully campaigning to have states grant him monopoly. He told the same story, that it was a natural monopoly and all the competition was hurting the public's access. Then installation rates dropped precipitously once the monopoly was granted.
So you would say the the old AT&T monopoly was a success? And the massive explosion of services and technologies after the breakup was just a coincidence? The Post Office always used to claim that overnight delivery was not practical, until private companies started doing it.
I would agree that the current 'private profit, public loss' model is a sack of crapola. But a semi-open trading market on top of a layer of bailed out monopolies isn't what I would call a free market.
This DNSChanger thing is the biggest non-story I've seen since Y2K. This thing had 4 million clients across 100 countries. It seems to me that is pretty close to nothing. By the time of the shut off, I saw multiple numbers in the 300k range. Now that is the same as nothing as far as the Internet is concerned. I agree with the folks who say they should have just turned them off and walked away. But hey if ISC wants to do the work on their dime, that is very generous of them, I just wouldn't have bothered since practically nobody would be affected.
What do you mean by 'saw your first signal'? If you meant 'anticipates a demand' then this isn't any different than what any retailer or distributor does, also providing a service by accepting the risk that the demand will never materialize.
If you mean that the HFT eavesdrops on an order before it enters the exchange's matching engine and trades ahead of it, that is flat out illegal. If you know of any instances of this, you should contact the SEC.
There's no such thing as god in ancient Greece either, but I don't think you would call them atheists. A super powerful interventionist Boddhisatva is indistinguishable from a god for all intents and purposes.
Why do you say that? How is hft different than any other business? I can't afford to build my own car from raw materials, but Pontiac can. I don't think you would suggest that car making should be illegal. You are free to open an HFT business if you can get the money together, just as you are free to start making cars if you can put the cash together.
Slashdot Mirror
I never saw a description of Utopia with you in it either.
I wouldn't mind paying a few dollars for sites I use a lot, but filling out a form with all that information is too much work. Plus it pisses me off that I have to specify Visa/MC/whatever when this information is already present in the credit card number. AHhhhhhhhhhhh!!!
I am with you on a lot of this. I always say I will allow ads while on a certain site when that site takes responsibility for the content. At least with print ads the magazine publisher has some control over who/what gets advertised on their pages. With a website there is no such control, instead some third party can send whatever content they like. Given the incidents of ad servers serving up exploits, I am not at all motivated to allow the ads.
Why do you say "there almost has to be a markup" when the experience you relate proves that this is not the case? If you can get it 'gray market' for a quarter of what local sellers would charge, this proves there that the markup isn't necessary.
I feel now that I would never participate willingly in any genetic study,
Government enforcing monopolies isn't a free market.
It is a big deal because it says 'Google' on it. I tried writing 'Google' on my garbage and people lined up to get a beta invitation.
Yes, those are the (I think valid) responses to that point. If the TSA was really about serious "terrorism" deterrent it would have a better reaction to this sort of contraband incident. And government doesn't do effective, let alone cost effective.
The poll got similar results from people who flew 3+ times in the last year. Or, at least, that's what the Gallup site says the results were.
Some folks have observed that it isn't necessary for the TSA to find a gun all of the time or even most of the time. All they have to do is make it too risky to try it. Since there is an extremely limited supply of fanatical hijackers, they can't afford to send them through checkpoints where they *might* be detected. Instead they will be saved for less risky attempts.
Not according to the poll results at least. instead flier's opinions were roughly the same as non-fliers http://www.gallup.com/poll/156491/Americans-Views-TSA-Positive-Negative.aspx "57% of the smaller group who have flown at least three times [in the past year] have an excellent or good opinion of the TSA's job performance"
I am going to skip this and hold out for the Instagram OS
The point was that the energy to raise global temps doesn't come from human activities, it comes from the sun. The difference is now in the process by which the sun's energy is radiated back into space.
There's no reason the amendments should be any less ridiculous than the bill itself.
the anyone-can-copy market doesn't actually lead to innovation. (If it did lead to innovation, Linux would surely be the desktop of choice today, right?)
There's plenty of evidence to support thinking otherwise. See for example Against Intellectual Monopoly by Boldrin and Levine
I submit that this sort of story is overblown.Yes, this is one out of hundreds of characteristics on a list. Just having one or even fifty from the list doesn't mean any individual has crossed the threshold of "suspicious". Everyone on /. should be familiar with this sort of thing from spam filters.
No fingerprints is also common among medical workers who are constantly scrubbing their hands.
I sure do measure success, at least partly, in new services. And so did my grandparents. When telephone was a new service, they measured success by having access to it. Same with indoor plumbing and everything else. Correct me if I am wrong, it seems to me your belief is that somehow these things wouldn't be available without a government-enforced monopoly, which I don't think is a reasonable conclusion. For instance, (once the Bell patents expired) in 1907 some 20,000 independent operators were running half the new phone installations. The rate of phone installations soared once the patents expired, until the next Bell chairman began successfully campaigning to have states grant him monopoly. He told the same story, that it was a natural monopoly and all the competition was hurting the public's access. Then installation rates dropped precipitously once the monopoly was granted.
Nuts I already sold my house to go grab some of the free water.
So you would say the the old AT&T monopoly was a success? And the massive explosion of services and technologies after the breakup was just a coincidence? The Post Office always used to claim that overnight delivery was not practical, until private companies started doing it. I would agree that the current 'private profit, public loss' model is a sack of crapola. But a semi-open trading market on top of a layer of bailed out monopolies isn't what I would call a free market.
This DNSChanger thing is the biggest non-story I've seen since Y2K. This thing had 4 million clients across 100 countries. It seems to me that is pretty close to nothing. By the time of the shut off, I saw multiple numbers in the 300k range. Now that is the same as nothing as far as the Internet is concerned. I agree with the folks who say they should have just turned them off and walked away. But hey if ISC wants to do the work on their dime, that is very generous of them, I just wouldn't have bothered since practically nobody would be affected.
Wikipedia has an interesting article on this idea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobin_tax
What do you mean by 'saw your first signal'? If you meant 'anticipates a demand' then this isn't any different than what any retailer or distributor does, also providing a service by accepting the risk that the demand will never materialize. If you mean that the HFT eavesdrops on an order before it enters the exchange's matching engine and trades ahead of it, that is flat out illegal. If you know of any instances of this, you should contact the SEC.
There's no such thing as god in ancient Greece either, but I don't think you would call them atheists. A super powerful interventionist Boddhisatva is indistinguishable from a god for all intents and purposes.
Why do you say that? How is hft different than any other business? I can't afford to build my own car from raw materials, but Pontiac can. I don't think you would suggest that car making should be illegal. You are free to open an HFT business if you can get the money together, just as you are free to start making cars if you can put the cash together.